Emporia Wars Rules/Discussion - Page 2 - Dragon Saga Community Chat - WarpPortal Community Forums

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Emporia Wars Rules/Discussion


  • Please log in to reply
89 replies to this topic

#26 EnderW

EnderW

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 967 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:00 AM

I have to disagree and would like to ask to reconsider this rule. My points are:

1.
This is a game, which is suppose to give player the fun from playing it. EW is one of this game feature that people can enjoy, and i know many people really enjoy EW. By forcing this rule, are decreasing the chance/match where they can play in EW because if they lost in 1st round, they cannot play EW anymore.

Possible argument against my first point: "You can still do this! Just dont let your guild bid, and just be a mercenary."

Some active EW guilds dont open mercenary. So, by not bidding, those people may not have chance PLAYING in EW. People who enjoys EW just want to be able to play in EW as many as possible match, not to mention we only have EW once a week (twice if you counted dragon defense), maximum 5 matches. In addition, from my point of view, playing as a guild is more fun than as mercenary because it is more possible to build teamworks or apply strategy as a guild. So, not bidding is not a good solution =.=

2.


I would not say "the users will attempt to knock out a specific guild". Reasons:

  • That specific guild has never opened mercenary. It is only natural if many users mercen for its opponent guild because they can not mercen for that guild.
  • Personally, i prefer to mercen a "weaker" or smaller guild because it will more balance the match and a balance match is more fun (fighting 1 person or only fight 1 person is not fun at all =.=). And from my observation, many active EWers also tend to mercen weaker/smaller guild because it is more fun. Since that specific guild is already super strong (and they only choose their stronger member to participate in EW), any active mercenary who plays in EW for fun will see there is no need to mercen that guild (if they opened mercenary).
  • Personally again, I dont see EW as sport match, but i see it more like a "war without any ill intention". And i feel, "an alliance" should be allowed in EW, because the match is still properly conducted without cheating (feeder or icereaper incident).
So i would not say this "gang up" is intentional, but it was because of that circumtances.

By saying this, i don't mean that every guild must open mercenary. Sure for that guild, closing the mercenary is the best strategy for winning in EW (unless we can choose mercenary personally). But by closing this mercenary, i feel that they should not "complaint" about opponent's mercenary (It is like.... after u have chosen something, you should take the responsibility/consequence of that action, not complaining).

Even this rule is enforced, if users really intentionally want to knock out a specific guild (as an alliance), they can still do that by only letting 1 strong guild join EW while the other strong player mercen for that strong guild. (This mean, EW will have less participant and it will slowly killing EW =.=).

3.


Exactly. But dragon defense should also be considered. There are many guilds that dont have a chance in participating dragon defense. They can only playing in dragon defense as mercenary. With this rule, it means that if they want to have chance, playing in dragon defense, they must not playing in EW as a guild (why did i say chance? It is because they are not sure whether the castle holder or the challenger will open mercen in dragon defense).

********************************************

In conclusion, this rule will not solve the "alliance" problem. It will only slowly killing EW. (it will only decrease the chance people playing in EW, make a match more imbalance (even a sport match are more interesting when both parties have "balance" power), and will lead to monopoly/duopoly/tripoly of castle unless the users are made an alliance as mentioned in point 2)

Last, with those many advantages, only the top guild are deserved to use castle. With mercenary system, the TOP guild, is a guild that are able to defeat their opponents, even its opponent has mercenaries, or even if they have mercenary (because it means they can negotiate better to ask mercenary to join them).


The issue as I see it is this: a guild should not have to beat it's opponents multiple times in what is meant to be a single round elimination tournament

We don't care if you gang up on us but it is unfair when we have to fight you all 3-4 times in order to take the castle and that is not how the tournament was meant to be played

this clarification does not stop you from grouping together against us it only stops you having multiple shots at it which is unfair

example:

Ascension, BadTouch, Empire, Donuts, Improvavel, Regulars decide they want to work together to beat on rebellion fine have one of the 6 guilds bid and then merc into it otherwise you're pretty much just taking up slots in the tournament and being unfair to everyone else.
  • 1

#27 KingofAces1354

KingofAces1354

    I made it Off Topic

  • Members
  • 39 posts
  • LocationIllinois
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:11 AM

Just pointing a few things out here

1 get a life people wow arguing over simple rules on an unbalanced system to begin with

2 donuts had castle once thats it so why mention us over and over?
  • 0

#28 AkatsukiKawa

AkatsukiKawa

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:13 AM

The issue as I see it is this: a guild should not have to beat it's opponents multiple times in what is meant to be a single round elimination tournament

We don't care if you gang up on us but it is unfair when we have to fight you all 3-4 times in order to take the castle and that is not how the tournament was meant to be played

this clarification does not stop you from grouping together against us it only stops you having multiple shots at it which is unfair

example:

Ascension, BadTouch, Empire, Donuts, Improvavel, Regulars decide they want to work together to beat on rebellion fine have one of the 6 guilds bid and then merc into it otherwise you're pretty much just taking up slots in the tournament and being unfair to everyone else.


I get your point and i am agree with your opinion.

But from what i read, it seems that they create this rule because of the grouping/alliance/gang up problem, and as we said this rule wont stop that =.=.

What my concern now is.... we need more guild to actively participate in EW, and kinda worried with this rule, there will be less guild joining EW.
  • 1

#29 Kazu731

Kazu731

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3347 posts
  • LocationSky Garden
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Sky Garden

Posted 04 November 2011 - 03:25 AM

I think there are several issues regarding this clarification.

To begin with, it is not designed in the game mechanic that you cannot join Emporia if your guild is entered, after your battle is over. This makes it difficult for new guilds that may want to participate because they would be unaware of this unless reading the clarification.

Furthermore, I find that it skirts the actual issue. You should not be punished for using a Mercenary. While I find that this is helpful in guilds using their own strength, it virtually cuts all support they could get from Mercenaries. While I don't find this to be too bad in itself, another issue that should be looked at it is the issue of Mercenaries that join purposely to die. Limiting the Mercenaries to non-Emporia entered Mercenaries with ill intent is very difficult even with this clarification on the rules. A guild entered in Emporia could easily create or make use of a sister guild to utilize "feeders."

While some guilds feel that they are ganged up-upon, as Ender said, others feel that they cannot even attempt to compete because their lifeblood is cut by using Mercenaries with feeding intent. This is a major issue because altogether disallowing Mercenaries would be a punishment to smaller guilds. There needs to be a direct discussion among these guilds and a compromise to come to an agreement of fairness or one of these guilds will end up in a very unfortunate place.

I really don't mean for this to turn into a flame war and if I have my facts wrong please correct me; but I want to point out the exact group of guilds that needs to be participant in this discussion.

As Ender said, Ascension, BadTouch, and Empire hold a pretty solid friendship of sorts. This can lead to super-stacked mercenaries all joining one match just to help one win against any guild, Rebellion or not. The mercenary clarification is great in this case because it prevents this from happening. However, an issue of feeding mercenaries has been present in several wars. This is more easily avoided through the use of a sister guild--not that I am claiming anyone has or plans to do this, but it can be avoided--and it also leads to a punishment for smaller guilds. There needs to be an agreement amongst these guilds that no foul play takes place and strict monitoring needs to be over the matches so that we can come up with a solution to the Emporia problem. This clarification should not be a permanent one.

Edited by Kazu731, 04 November 2011 - 03:26 AM.

  • 7

#30 EnderW

EnderW

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 967 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:20 AM

I'm not so sure the feeding thing is an issue since it does get reported and those that do it do get punished I don't think it's as large a problem as some people think however.

since I joined rebellion (some months ago now) it happened just once when one member made a stupid mistake one week when we weren't taking part the member was suspended for a week as was our guild leader (to prevent rebellion biding in the next emporia after it)

some of the posts I've seen about feeding (most get removed by mods) make it out like rebellion makes plans to feed and does it every week which is simply not true the staff would have disbanded the guild by now if it was.

personally I think a better way to fix the emporia system than to make rules would be to upgrade it give guild leaders more control over the merc system for their guilds the ability to either only allow those invited to join their team or the ability to kick people from their team would be a great help (I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement however)

(not trying to flame or anything just giving my viewpoint on the subject)
  • 6

#31 Endbringer

Endbringer

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 574 posts

Posted 04 November 2011 - 04:34 AM

personally I think a better way to fix the emporia system than to make rules would be to upgrade it give guild leaders more control over the merc system for their guilds the ability to either only allow those invited to join their team or the ability to kick people from their team would be a great help (I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement however)


Completely and fully agree with this.
  • 8

#32 Kazu731

Kazu731

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3347 posts
  • LocationSky Garden
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Sky Garden

Posted 04 November 2011 - 06:35 AM

I'm not so sure the feeding thing is an issue since it does get reported and those that do it do get punished I don't think it's as large a problem as some people think however.

since I joined rebellion (some months ago now) it happened just once when one member made a stupid mistake one week when we weren't taking part the member was suspended for a week as was our guild leader (to prevent rebellion biding in the next emporia after it)

some of the posts I've seen about feeding (most get removed by mods) make it out like rebellion makes plans to feed and does it every week which is simply not true the staff would have disbanded the guild by now if it was.

personally I think a better way to fix the emporia system than to make rules would be to upgrade it give guild leaders more control over the merc system for their guilds the ability to either only allow those invited to join their team or the ability to kick people from their team would be a great help (I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement however)

(not trying to flame or anything just giving my viewpoint on the subject)

This is a great suggestion. I did not mean to make it sound like Rebellion intentionally chooses to do things like feeding or plans for it and I know that one action of a stupid individual can cause problems for the entire guild. A controlled mercenary system by the guild leaders would be a wonderful long-term solution if we can get the developer team on it and I think just about anyone would agree it'd be a great idea.

Edited by Kazu731, 04 November 2011 - 06:35 AM.

  • 0

#33 Coolsam

Coolsam

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 4994 posts
  • LocationHiding from my Subscribers
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:revreS

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:03 AM

Instead of saying there are a loopholes in this rule, you should point this loopholes. By doing that, u really can contribute more into the discussion, and prevent us to have "a war regarding of EWs rule" in the future


Well some are obvious. Guild member currently in the guild with castle or in tournament leaving guild just to merc and help others. Only to rejoin after EW.

Another would be having certain members of a guild making a seperate guild to win tournament and let a castle holding guild keep their castle for another week.

Again more may exist but you'll have to pay attention. Every rule has a subtle or obvious trick around it.
  • 0

#34 EnderW

EnderW

    Awarded #1 Troll

  • Members
  • 967 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:15 AM

Sam you would probably find most if not all those things would be covered under rule 1, 3 or 4.

the more I look at those rules I can see why there has been confusion they're fairly loose and just about anything could be seen as breaking the rules.
  • 3

#35 StormHaven

StormHaven

    (ノ°▽°)ノ︵┻━┻

  • VMod Retired
  • 5431 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Dekard

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:18 AM

the more I look at those rules I can see why there has been confusion they're fairly loose and just about anything could be seen as breaking the rules.


And there is where the problem really starts the rules are so generally and open to interpretation that It's hard to actually define what is allowed and isn't in some cases.
  • 0

#36 AkatsukiKawa

AkatsukiKawa

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 09:33 AM

personally I think a better way to fix the emporia system than to make rules would be to upgrade it give guild leaders more control over the merc system for their guilds the ability to either only allow those invited to join their team or the ability to kick people from their team would be a great help (I'm not sure how hard that would be to implement however)


Also agree with this. Instead of making rule that are vague, better to change the game mechanics to fix =.=. Even we have rule, only active player who read the forum know that rule. So the rules are quiet difficult to be enforced =.=...
  • 1

#37 Rimmy

Rimmy

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Dragon Saga Moderator
  • 2354 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 11:21 AM

Sam you would probably find most if not all those things would be covered under rule 1, 3 or 4.

the more I look at those rules I can see why there has been confusion they're fairly loose and just about anything could be seen as breaking the rules.


Agreed.

IMO, the biggest problem with the current rules is that players are basically expected to police themselves using a set of rules that are entirely open to interpretation. It's just a recipe for disaster no matter how you look at it.

It's no wonder there's so much hostility and paranoia in EW nearly every week when players are forced to constantly be on guard for any sign of rules being broken -- both by opponents, and by allies/friends/guildmates -- and then if they suspect a rule has been broken and they want to report it, they have to go through the hassle of gathering evidence, submitting a report, etc. when 9 times out of 10, the evidence won't be concrete enough for something to be done, anyways.

IMO, in EW, players should be able to focus on playing the game and having fun without worrying about all that crap. It blankets the entire EW thing in this hostile atmosphere almost every single week because everyone's so worried about ensuring the rules are enforced, rather than just playing for fun and enjoying the experience for what it was meant to be.

Which brings me to my next point: I can understand the theory behind it, but IMO punishing an entire guild for the actions of one player or a small number of players is not a good idea. Human nature pretty much assures that most players form opinions about others based on which guild they belong to, and it gets even worse when you're reinforcing and encouraging that flawed view by creating labels that are unfairly applied to some people who don't deserve them.

If a guild gets punished as a whole, then you're forever placing a label on that guild and everyone who joins it in the eyes of the community, which, IMO, is completely unfair.

I don't condone breaking rules, and I'm not defending those who have been punished for it for good reason. But for all those who were punished simply by association, it's a very unfortunate mess and it's a shame they had to get swept up in it -- because they continue to suffer under the label whether they deserve it or not.

I'm not saying I'm innocent with respect to grouping others together unfairly. I've taken my fair share of hostile attitudes toward other guilds and their members out of misguided frustration, and I've tried to change that by learning to look at the issue from the other side. Honestly, watching the development of the various guild rivalries in the server over the past several months, it's reached the point where I think we're all at least somewhat at fault for this cycle of hostility and drama (that is, those of us who are involved in this ongoing issue) -- because we're still judging many people based on labels rather than their own individual actions and choices.

Anyways, the bottom line is this: The current rules -- and the potential punishments that accompany them -- need to be reviewed and revised, IMO. They need to be further refined if players are to continue to police themselves, otherwise there's too much room for interpretation (but ideally, I think players shouldn't have to do this). Furthermore, I think that the community as a whole needs to start fresh and move on. You can't expect respect, understanding and an olive branch from others unless you're willing to offer them the same.
  • 6

#38 StormHaven

StormHaven

    (ノ°▽°)ノ︵┻━┻

  • VMod Retired
  • 5431 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Dekard

Posted 04 November 2011 - 11:39 AM

Agreed.

IMO, the biggest problem with the current rules is that players are basically expected to police themselves using a set of rules that are entirely open to interpretation. It's just a recipe for disaster no matter how you look at it.

It's no wonder there's so much hostility and paranoia in EW nearly every week when players are forced to constantly be on guard for any sign of rules being broken -- both by opponents, and by allies/friends/guildmates -- and then if they suspect a rule has been broken and they want to report it, they have to go through the hassle of gathering evidence, submitting a report, etc. when 9 times out of 10, the evidence won't be concrete enough for something to be done, anyways.

IMO, in EW, players should be able to focus on playing the game and having fun without worrying about all that crap. It blankets the entire EW thing in this hostile atmosphere almost every single week because everyone's so worried about ensuring the rules are enforced, rather than just playing for fun and enjoying the experience for what it was meant to be.

Which brings me to my next point: I can understand the theory behind it, but IMO punishing an entire guild for the actions of one player or a small number of players is not a good idea. Human nature pretty much assures that most players form opinions about others based on which guild they belong to, and it gets even worse when you're reinforcing and encouraging that flawed view by creating labels that are unfairly applied to some people who don't deserve them.

If a guild gets punished as a whole, then you're forever placing a label on that guild and everyone who joins it in the eyes of the community, which, IMO, is completely unfair.

I don't condone breaking rules, and I'm not defending those who have been punished for it for good reason. But for all those who were punished simply by association, it's a very unfortunate mess and it's a shame they had to get swept up in it -- because they continue to suffer under the label whether they deserve it or not.

I'm not saying I'm innocent with respect to grouping others together unfairly. I've taken my fair share of hostile attitudes toward other guilds and their members out of misguided frustration, and I've tried to change that by learning to look at the issue from the other side. Honestly, watching the development of the various guild rivalries in the server over the past several months, it's reached the point where I think we're all at least somewhat at fault for this cycle of hostility and drama (that is, those of us who are involved in this ongoing issue) -- because we're still judging many people based on labels rather than their own individual actions and choices.

Anyways, the bottom line is this: The current rules -- and the potential punishments that accompany them -- need to be reviewed and revised, IMO. They need to be further refined if players are to continue to police themselves, otherwise there's too much room for interpretation (but ideally, I think players shouldn't have to do this). Furthermore, I think that the community as a whole needs to start fresh and move on. You can't expect respect, understanding and an olive branch from others unless you're willing to offer them the same.


You make a lot of good points. I'd just like try to enforce that punishing an entire guild lightly instead of severely punishing the people who actually broke the rules is a bad idea in my opinion. You drag innocent players into a conflict that they know nothing about and get labeled and punished because of it. So instead of leader's and innocents getting punished because of the action of members, I'd rather see the actually person committing the offense severely punished instead of just slapping multiple people on the wrist.
  • 0

#39 Nolanvoid

Nolanvoid

    Nolan Smash!

  • Retired
  • 2024 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:02 PM

I think I'll jump in on this discussion now.

It is very pleasing to see a discussion by the community without getting too far into pointing fingers and flaming one another. I must thank everyone that has participated in this discussion.

I would like to address a few points that were made.

In regards to punishment. There has been punishment for rules breaking for all valid reports that were sent in, which is quite a few. We do not publicly address it to prevent scrutiny towards an individual or a guild. Some of which has been brought up in this topic. We have kept most of the punishment for breaking the rules direct on the most part, however, once issues arise more frequently, guild leaders are contacted.

To address the rules that were created. We did not make them specific for the fact that it would require a large set of rules or there will be many loopholes. It's quite obvious that if something doesn't appear to be addressed, someone will attempt to abuse it and feign ignorance. The rules were created so that everyone attempts to play fair. Initially, we did not want to take part in enforcing any part of the Emporia, however, there were abuses that became prevalent. Even though there are already game rules in the EULA (End User License Agreement) that basically states that you shouldn't abuse game mechanics, they were still abused. (i.e. feeding).

For the concerns about mercenaries, there was a topic that was previously removed when the rules were first brought up. It was addressed to the guild leaders at that current time that if you're involved in the tournament, you cannot take part as a mercenary for another guild. This is why certain people are aware of what was mentioned, why it cannot be found now, and why certain people don't know about it. I understand that and do not fault anyone for not knowing.

In terms of guild leader control over mercenaries, this has been brought up to the developer before the rules were created after the initial feeding incident. Many improvement suggestions have been made, but we have not received any new confirmation that it would happen or be feasible. Our preference as well, would be to allow the guild leaders to control the mercenary feature, however, since it cannot be done, the rules are in place.

Question to everyone: (Please take some time to think about the positives and negatives of your suggestion before you state them)
If a new set of guidelines were to be set in place, what would be in it? Would your suggestion still make sure that Emporia is still "Fair" and "Fun"?


@StormHaven
I'm not sure where the assumption has been made that we have punished a guild lightly over punishing individuals severely. Wherever it came from, it is incorrect. Only when an issue has occurred several times has guild punishment been considered.
  • 2

#40 Coolsam

Coolsam

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 4994 posts
  • LocationHiding from my Subscribers
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:revreS

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:23 PM

New rules and guidelines fair? Well not entirely.
Fun? Well if it guilds are good sports even when losing then yes.

My suggestion: Castle hold reset. If 1 guild holds and defends their 2 star castle for far too long, then they will get the boot and the tourney will be set to allow more opportunities for other guilds. Since 2 star is easier to defend.
  • 0

#41 GrapefruitGod

GrapefruitGod

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 1338 posts
  • LocationSurrounded by kneesocks
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:decard

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:29 PM

The two star castle has only been defended once though
  • 0

#42 Kazu731

Kazu731

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 3347 posts
  • LocationSky Garden
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Sky Garden

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:31 PM

I find that the Castle holding is not yet an issue as no one has successfully held it for what would be considered an extended period of time. Even a month, I would argue, is not long enough for an auto boot if they are capable of doing it. But again, this is not a present issue in our state of Emporia.
  • 0

#43 Nolanvoid

Nolanvoid

    Nolan Smash!

  • Retired
  • 2024 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:32 PM

New rules and guidelines fair? Well not entirely.
Fun? Well if it guilds are good sports even when losing then yes.

My suggestion: Castle hold reset. If 1 guild holds and defends their 2 star castle for far too long, then they will get the boot and the tourney will be set to allow more opportunities for other guilds. Since 2 star is easier to defend.



I'm not sure you're understanding the question. There are no new rules or guidelines. As others have mentioned, what was posted is only a clarification.

I'm asking if you have any suggestions that would be a rule or guideline for Emporia. So if there were no rules or guidelines right now, what would you propose?
  • 1

#44 Coolsam

Coolsam

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 4994 posts
  • LocationHiding from my Subscribers
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:revreS

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:39 PM

I'm not sure you're understanding the question. There are no new rules or guidelines. As others have mentioned, what was posted is only a clarification.

I'm asking if you have any suggestions that would be a rule or guideline for Emporia. So if there were no rules or guidelines right now, what would you propose?


It was under my opinion on fairness/fun. The "autoboot from 2star after X consecutive defend."
  • 0

#45 AkatsukiKawa

AkatsukiKawa

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 04 November 2011 - 12:59 PM

It was under my opinion on fairness/fun. The "autoboot from 2star after X consecutive defend."


Aramis asked our opinion in creating a "new guideline/rule" that will still give fun and fairness. From my understanding, he means, the game mechanic of Emporia Wars will still be the same as now, but the rules that was created before will be revised.

Your opinion is, from my understanding again, changing the game mechanics of Emporia Wars, which is cant be done for now.



Still thinking about a fun and fair rule =.=....

Edited by AkatsukiKawa, 04 November 2011 - 01:13 PM.

  • 0

#46 Miname

Miname

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2184 posts
  • LocationDefinitely in my zone
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Spamonica

Posted 04 November 2011 - 01:29 PM

I feel that something must be done about guilds that strictly rely on mercenaries. I've witnessed guilds competing with one or two actual guild members present, everyone else being a mercenary. This tactic is very possible to counter with a well coordinated team, but it's still quite an aggravating experience. And it's very detrimental to the other guild, if they have mercenaries turned off because more often that not the open side side will fill up with stacked players who are just bored and have nothing else to do at that time.
I believe this is more of an immediate issue due to guild vaults being glitched and stopping regularly participating guilds from participating at all.

Solution: If one guild has mercenaries set to be off, the other side must do so as well?

Edited by Miname, 04 November 2011 - 01:30 PM.

  • 0

#47 AkatsukiKawa

AkatsukiKawa

    Amateur Blogger

  • Members
  • 271 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 05 November 2011 - 04:05 PM

Now i think, the guild that has lost should be allowed at least to mercen for the guild that defeated them (was thinking they should be allowed to mercen as long as they dont fight against the same guild, but it will be too complicated =.=). This way the winner guild wont have to fight the same guild multiple times, and the guild that has lost still have chance to play....

Of course feeders/reloggings are still not allowed.

But again, this rule will be difficult to enforced unless the game mechanics is changed, but it is better than not allowed to mercen at all after lost in EW.

About whether they are allowed to mercen in dragon defense, i cant give much opinion about it since i have not gotten the feeling, how difficult it is defend/attack the castle. Just can think the rule in dragon defense should be made to prevent one guild holding the castle for too long. (But as this is not the current problem as Prinz has mentioned, so dunno =.=)
  • 0

#48 Rimmy

Rimmy

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Dragon Saga Moderator
  • 2354 posts
  • LocationPennsylvania
  • Playing:Dragon Saga

Posted 05 November 2011 - 05:28 PM

Building off of Akatsuki's suggestion regarding mercing after your guild has already lost in the tournament...

How about we simply change the rule to the following:

1. A guild's members may not merc against a guild to which they have already lost in the regular Saturday tournament matches.

2. All guilds are permitted to merc for Dragon Defense matches, but for the attacking guilds only (not the defending guilds).

This would address the concerns about having to fight against the same people multiple times, while also giving players who participate in EW a chance to merc for other matches on occasion. It also would address the concerns about ensuring that larger guilds benefit somehow from having more members, as having more members would mean you have a greater chance at defending the castle successfully compared to guilds that do not have enough players to front a full roster for defense.

I don't really think it would be all that complicated as Akatsuki fears, simply because it would be easy to pick out those who are breaking the rule (and provide concrete evidence) simply by noting which guild flags you see and taking a SS if you see one for a guild you have already beaten that week.

So for instance, take this week's EW lineup:

---
IMPROVAVEL vs. Regulars

Donuts vs. (no opponent)

which became...

IMPROVAVEL vs. Donuts

which became...

Donuts vs. Ascension (1-star Castle Match)

??? vs. Rebellion (2-star Castle Match)
---


Under these proposed changes to the rule, since Regulars lost to IMPROVAVEL, they would not be permitted to merc *against* IMPROVAVEL again in the Saturday tournament. They would, however, be permitted to merc for IMPROVAVEL, or for Donuts for either of the castle matches (they could not, however, merc for Ascension or Rebellion, unless Ascension won their defense match and challenged Rebellion for the two-star castle).

This alteration to the rules would essentially mean that defeating a guild would ensure you don't have to fight against any of that guild's players again in that week's tournament. At the same time, however, it would ensure that weaker guilds can seek help from stronger guilds in certain circumstances. Furthermore, it would ensure that -- generally speaking -- it would be very difficult to defend the castle successfully and hold the castle for more than one week, and if your guild managed to do so, it would have to be through your own power alone (not using mercs). This would encourage guilds to more seriously consider building their ranks, so that once they've won possession of a castle, they have more players to use to defend it.

It's just a thought. My main concern was addressing the issue of guilds ganging up on each other in an unfair manner or in a way which could be exploited to ensure that a single guild keeps possession of a castle week after week simply because they're relying on mercs. I think this strikes a balance of sorts, while also letting guilds that have already lost have a chance to at least participate in some of the remaining EW matches.

Edited by Rimmy, 05 November 2011 - 05:31 PM.

  • 2

#49 Yurai

Yurai

    Too Legit To Quit

  • Members
  • 2917 posts
  • Playing:Pogo's Lounge

Posted 05 November 2011 - 09:35 PM

Why not get rid of the mercenary system altogether so we don't have to worry about these silly rules? Either that, or make it so you have to pay money out of your guild vault for each mercenary accepted.

mer·ce·nar·y�?? Posted Image�??[mur-suh-ner-ee] adjective, noun, plural -nar·ies.

adjective 1. working or acting merely for money or other reward; venal.2. hired to serve in a foreign army, guerrilla organization, etc. noun 3. a professional soldier hired to serve in a foreign army.4. any hireling.


None of the working definitions say that mercenaries are free, and the trophies you get can hardly be considered a reward of any value. This whole system doesn't even make sense IMO. It's a guild vs. guild war and we can have free soldiers that can either help or help the enemy team.

Edited by Yurai, 05 November 2011 - 09:39 PM.

  • 6

#50 StormHaven

StormHaven

    (ノ°▽°)ノ︵┻━┻

  • VMod Retired
  • 5431 posts
  • Playing:Dragon Saga
  • Server:Dekard

Posted 06 November 2011 - 12:03 AM

100g per mercenary sounds good in my opinion.
  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users